Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

DRDO giving false information to Rashtrapati Sachivalaya (President Secretariat) regarding Transfer and victimization of whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta of DMSRDE, Kanpur

2 Comments
To
Hon’ble
Shri Pranab Mukherjee
President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan
New Delhi – 110011

Subject: DRDO giving false information to Rashtrapati Sachivalaya (President Secretariat) regarding Transfer and victimization of whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta of DMSRDE, Kanpur

Reference:DOP/05/53123/DMSRDE/M/02 dated 22 Sept 2014 of DOP, DRDO

Hon’ble Sir,

Top management of DRDO is infamous for ill-treat to whistle blowers and officials that belonging to SC/ST and minority community in DRDO. The increasing number court cases, representations to President House, SC/ST commission and minority commission are self explanatory of failure of DRDO HR management

Currently Honorable Madras High Court punishedtwo top DRDO scientists with simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/each. It clearly shows the DRDO losing day by day its credibility and responsibility towards national goals scientifically & administratively as well as welfare of employees and officers working in the organisation. Sir, you can assume the worst situation of DRDO that the top senior officer Dr. G. Malkondiah who was convicted by Hon’ble Madras High Court is Head of HR Department of DRDO.

With reference to the above cited letter , Shri Navin Prakash Gupta, scientist ‘C’ raised his voice against corruption and send lot of complaints to various agencies including Hon’ble Defence Minister with proof.

The representation send to you by whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta on 24 July 2014 ,  which subsequently your good office send to DRDO for their comments and with above reference  DRDO send a reply to ShriNavin Prakash Gupta mentioning in

Para -2 “ Competent authority has approved your transfer from DMSRDE, Kanpur to DRL, Tezpur in public interest keeping in the view the exigencies of work. It is neither is punishment nor an act of victimize as you alleged.”

Shri Avinash Chander constituted a fact finding committee and subsequentlytransfer whistle blower ShriNavin Prakash Gupta to DRL, Tezpur without justifying the issue in public interest. The only aim was to save corrupt scientist and message to others beware don’t make noise against his loyal corrupt officials. It is nothing but abuse of power by Shri Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO, who is working in illegal second extension in service after retirement.

Shri Avinash Chander again constituted second fact finding committee to enquire further the corruption charges against Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Question is why Shri Avinash Chander constituted two fact finding committees, if there was no corruption evidences on record. As DRDO wrote in above reference letter that allegation are baseless. In case the allegations were baseless then why not DRDO disclosed the first FFIC report to whistle blower and sought explanation from him for false complaint to Defence Minister.

THE WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2011, NO. 17 OF 2014 of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 9th May, 2014, and is hereby published for general information on Monday, May 12, 2014.

Under the provisions of sad Act complainant means

(c) “complainant” means any person who makes a complaint relating to disclosure under this Act;

(d) “disclosure means a complaint relating to,—

(i) an attempt to commit or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

(ii) wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion by virtue of which demonstrable loss is caused to the Government or demonstrable wrongful gain accrues to the public servant or to any third party;

(iii) attempt to commit or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant, made in writing or by electronic mail or electronic mail message, against the public servant and includes public interest disclosure referred to in sub-section (2) of section 4;

Under the provisions of the CHAPTER V- Safeguards against victimisation the Act provide the protection to whistle blowers

PROTECTION TO THE PERSONS MAKING DISCLOSURE

11. (1) The Central Government shall ensure that no person or a public servant who has made a disclosure under this Act is victimised by initiation of any proceedings or otherwise merely on the ground that such person or a public servant had made a disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act.

(2) If any person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the ground that he had filed a complaint or made disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act, he may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in the matter, and such authority shall take such action, as deemed fit and may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority, as the case may be, to protect such person from being victimised or avoid his victimisation:

(3) Every direction given under sub-section (2) by the Competent Authority shall be binding upon the public servant or the public authority against whom the allegation of victimisation has been proved.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the power to give directions under sub-section (2), in relation to a public servant, shall include the power to direct the restoration of the public servant making the disclosure, to the status quo ante.

(5) Any person who wilfully does not comply with the direction of the Competent Authority under sub-section (2), shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to thirty thousand rupees.

The fact is as vigilant citizen of India I have sent more than one dozen corruption cases with complete proof to CVC and CVC duly register the case and send to CVO, MOD for further investigations against Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Question No 1–

The meaning of the exigencies:The state or quality of requiring much effort or immediate action,  A pressing or urgent situation, Urgent requirements; pressing needs – This all are bogus the DRL, a life science deserted lab, the Director sitting there also very corrupt, lot of complaints also pending against him. This is only example of abuse of power by Shri Avinash Chander to protect his corrupt colleague. The DRL lab , Tezpur is working in life sciences and where the exigencies of work,

Question No 2-

In DRDO there are more than 7500 scientist are available to Shri Avinash Chander and out of these computer science experts scientist, the 425 scientists are senior to Shri Navin Prakash Gupta and 447 are junior to him, strangely Shri Avinash Chander picked only the whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta for said exigencies of work   at DRL, Tezpur.

Question No 3 –

The transfer order was as punishment based on allegation & charges and not in any public interest which is quite evident from letter No. DOP/DS/08/01 dated 28th May 2014 issued and signed by Dr. A.K. Singh, DOP.

Therefore, it is requested that please protect whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta, Scientist ‘C’ from the clutches of corrupt scientists of DRDO and kindly issue orders to Hon’ble Defence Minister to provide immediate protection and relief to whistle blower scientist by cancellation of his transfer order.

The responsibility for execution of Act passed by Parliament after due sanction by Hon’ble President of India is on concerned ministries and ministers. As per this new Act, every ministry should have competent authority to address the matters of victimization of whistle blowers but the requests from whistle blower and his family are being ill-treated by Government officials, ignoring the provisions of whistle blower protection Act 2011.

DRDO is wasting lakhs and lakhs rupees every year in hundreds of court cases running across the country in various courts because of ego satisfaction of top DRDO brass, as well as because of poor HR management victimization of middle class Government servants.

Sir, kindly save this premier organization from the corruption, nepotism and favoritism and give the justice to honest whistle blower scientists and officials of DRDO who are devoted for the Nation.

Regards

PrabhuDandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com www.corruptionindrdo.com

Drdo

डी आर डी ओ के अच्छे दिन आने वाले है

1 Comment

परमाणु का प्रकाश आने वाला है – अवि जी जाने वाले है – देसी अम्मा का क्या होगा ?

नयी सुबहः के उज्जवल प्रकाश में डी आर डी ओ नयी इबारत लिखेगी जिसमे  भ्रष्टाचार, भाई भतीजा वाद, चापलूसी, अक्षमता, अवचार, कदाचार, दुर्व्यवहार,अत्याचार,निरकुंशताके लिए कोई जगह नहीं होगी।

आखिरकार मोदी जी ने सुन ली भाई – जय हो !

Drdo

DRDO gave bogus answer to Hon’ble Parliament via then Defence Minister Shri A.K. Antony

1 Comment

Parliament of India is supreme constitutional institution in which Hon’ble Member of Parliament (MP) can ask questions to Government Ministries regarding issues of public welfare, working of Government, issues of national interest and others as specified by Parliament rules &  procedures with permission of chair.

It is expected that concerned ministries will provide true and correct information to Parliament through concerned minister of the ministry of GOI. The Hon’ble ministers provide the reply to parliament questions based on inputs provided to them by the concerned department. Hon’ble Members of Parliament very frequently put questions in Parliament related to DRDO.

DRDO was having its own cell for preparing the reply to Parliament Questions headed by Dr. J.P. Singh, Scientist ‘F’ under Dte. of Planning & Coordination. Now after implementation of Rama Rao Committee, DRDO has restructure its organization setup and a new Dte of Parliamentary Affairs has been created with effect from 01 Sept 2013 under CCR&D(R&M) and Dr. J.P. Singh, Scientist ‘G’ is the first Director of this Directorate of Parliamentary Affairs. As a matter of fact Dr. J.P. Sigh is highly qualified scientist of DRDO with M.Sc. (Physics), MLISC and Ph.D. but since several years he is posted at DRDO HQ and looking after Parliamentary Affairs in DRDO. Dr. J.P. Singh was promoted as Scientist ‘G’ wef 01 July 2012 and having seniority no. 346 among all Scientist ‘G’ of DRDO as seniority roll as on November 2013,  still by superseding all his seniors he was appointed as Director, Dte of Parliamentary Affairs , DRDO HQ with blessings of his God Father.

To provide false and misleading information to Hon’ble MP’s by any ministry on behalf of the hon’ble minister is disrespect to Parliament and against the decorum of the House. As per Chapter 8: Privileges of Rajya Sabha Manual to provide false & misleading information to Parliament is breach of privileges and contempt of Parliament.

In 15th Lok Sabha, a Parliamentary Question No. 2732 was raised by Hon’ble members of Lok Sabha Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Shri Kirti (Jha) Azad and Dr. M.Jagannath which was answered by then Defence Minister Shri A. K. Antony on 10.12.2012. (Copy Annexed as downloaded from Lok Sabha website). The subject of the question sought was “WORKING CONDITIONS OF SCIENTISTS AT DRDO” (Very much relevant to present condition of DRDO)

Ex Defence Minister Shri A. K. Antony answered parliament question no. 2732 regarding extended tenure of DRDO Scientistsand as a practice the answer was prepared by DRDO Parliamentary Affair expert awardee scientist Dr. J. P. Singh who was looking Parliamentary Affairsin Directorate of Planning and Coordination, DRDO HQ in the year 2012.

Dr. J. P. Singh awarded in June 2011 for“Disseminating Information pertaining to DRDO’s Contributions” to the Parliament and its Committees. Subsequently he was also promoted as Scientist ‘G’ after superseding so many scientists who are actually doing science in various Lab/Estt of DRDO and his promotion is clear cut violation of FCS (Flexible Complementary Scheme) guide lines which says FCS benefits strictly for those scientists who are doing science or totally involved in scientific & technical assignments.

The justification for granting service extensions to so called scientists of DRDO now totally exposed and Modi Ji’s Government is taking stern action no output, no undue benefits.

But in respect of answer of  “Whether the Government favours the policy of retaining officers or specialists after their retirement; “ was totally false –DRDO never ever justified the extensions of their scientists, if you see the DOPT guidelines for service extensions FR 56 (d) it is clearly mentioned“the expertise of individuals should be of international stature” but 99% of service extensions given by DRDO to those scientists who has no patents, no international papers, no awards, even their own town does not know about his existence. DRDO posed them like without him the ongoing project will not move a single step but in reality all scientist on extensions 62-64 are either holding the post of DG or CCR&D at DRDO HQ and busy in administrative work only and not contributing in scientific activities (R&D) of DRDO.

It can be found in bio-data of all Distinguished Scientists/Outstanding Scientists on extension after age of 60 years that paper published are from in- house DRDO publications, awards in- house DRDO awards or the awards sponsored ones like by deemed universities who receiving funds from DRDO or societies who also received funds for their day to day activities from DRDO. The gang of bluffer scientists made a grip (मकड़जाल) to confuse and mislead the politicians in the name of indigenous technology development related to Defence.

The one example of the service extension of the so called great scientist as Shri Antony mentioned in his answer “This extension is grantedkeeping in view their knowledge and meritin theconcerned fields. Therefore, DRDO is utilizing rich experience and knowledge of these scientists in on-going research works” is of Shri R. C. Agarwal, Director, DEAL, DRDO, Raipur Road, Dehradun.

As per information of DRDO website he joined DRDO after B. Tech and subsequently he did M. Tech while working in LRDE and he got DRDO various in-house awards but not mentioned the name of awards and type of awards in his bio-data(whether local lab awards). Similarly it is mentioned that he contributed in so many projects (as a team member everyone in DRDO contributed with various project what is special). It is also mentioned that he published number of technical papers in national and international journals (no numbers, no details whether as main author or as co-author). Hence, big question mark is on his bio-data and extension in service)

This great scientist of DRDO nobody knows him in Dehradun what is his national or international existence, only SA knows who forwarded his name to ACC.

He got 60 to 62 years extension in June 2011 just after his bypass surgery in Feb 2011– see the DRDO top HR capability. ( Now everyone knows the capability of DRDO HR as Madras High Court punished  Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D) HR, DRDO with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/)

In the name of 100 Cr project Software Defined Radio (SDR) (PDC 36 Months) the status of project till date same as in the time of sanction. He purchased SDR 3000, SDR 5000 that was the achievement and spends 57% of funds in his first extension. Take lot of leaves, availed LTC to J&K, second LTC Sikkim etc and wasted precious money of poor tax payers.

Again he got second service extension 62 to 64 years same in the name of Software Defined Radio (SDR) (PDC 36 Months) but nothing mentionable has been done so far, currently project review is going on in Bangalore and the best part is that as Shri Antony told “DRDO utilizing rich experience of scientist” and so called scientist is in 27 days vacation to US and again wasting precious money of poor tax payers.

Can DRDO justifies the extension game –never but who cares to common man question? But Modi ji give hope that now no extension without proper justifications and cases should be initiated at least four months before retirement.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF     DEFENCE

LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED       QUESTION NO   2732

ANSWERED ON                 10.12.2012

WORKING CONDITIONS OF SCIENTISTS AT DRDO

2732 .   

Singh Shri Pradeep Kumar

Azad Shri Kirti (Jha)

Jagannath Dr. M.

Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to state:-

(a)                Whether dozens of top scientists at the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) are working on extended tenures;

(b)               Whether DRDO is facing the problem of human resource especially shortage of scientists for their projects;

(c)                If so, the details thereof;

(d)               Whether the Government favours the policy of retaining officers or specialists after their retirement; and

(e)               If so, the reasons for retaining them and steps being taken to impart training to new scientists and improve efficiency of DRDO?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI A.K. ANTONY)

(a)                Presently, 11 Distinguished (top) Scientists are working in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on extended tenures.

(b)               (b) & (c): There is no critical shortage of manpower in DRDO. However, a case has been taken up with Government for augmentation of its manpower to meet the requirements of ongoing and future projects.

(c)                (d) & (e): As per existing provision, scientists and technologists can be given extension in service. This extension is granted keeping in view their knowledge and merit in the concerned fields. Therefore, DRDO is utilizing rich experience and knowledge of these scientists in on-going research works.

DRDO has been giving due importance to training. The Organization has dedicated training institutes, such as Targeted Training Centre at Bangalore, Institute of Technology Management (ITM) at Mussoorie, Training Institute at Jodhpur, Military Institute of Training (MILIT) at Pune. DRDO has a well established training policy, whereby training programmes for scientists are organized / sponsored in technical and techno-managerial areas through renowned academic institutes / universities / other organizations from India and abroad.

Drdo

RTI – DRDO,TO ‘D’ Post valid financial concurrence ?

5 Comments
To                                                                                                                   6th October 2014
Shri K K Singh, IDAS,
Addl.CDA, CPIO,
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V,
R K PURAM,
NEW DELHI- 110066

 

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of concurrence of Ministry of Defence (Integrated Finance R&D) ID No. 1384/IF (R&D)/2006 dated 1st June 2006.

  1. Provide the certified copy of concurrence of Ministry of Defence (Integrated Finance R&D) ID No. 1384/ IF (R&D)/2006 dated 1st June 2006.
  2. Name competent authority of issuing above concurrence by Integrated Finance R&D.
  3. Ministry of Finance approval for issuing above said concurrence by Integrated Finance R&D.
  4. Copy of request/ proposal of DRDO on which concurrence was given by Ministry of Defence (Integrated Finance R&D).
  5. Whether this concurrence was given by Ministry of Defence (Integrated Finance R&D) to DRDO only for individuals promoted on 2006 as Technical Officer -D (Yes/No)

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com , www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed– DRDO RTI Reply No. RTI/01/ 2091/P/2013/0216   dated 23 August 2013 

                         Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/61836 

DRDO RTI Reply
DRDO RTI Reply

TO D position1 TO D position2

Drdo

RTI – Madras High court directed the Government to take appropriate departmental action against Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO

1 Comment
To                                                                                                                 6th October 2014
Sh A. M. Manichan,
Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi – 110011

 

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO   held guilty for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and   punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014. Further court directed the Government to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.Madras High Court Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005

  1. Provide under which CCS Rules the departmental action taken by Ministry of Defence as directed by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014 against Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO.
  2. Provide the policy and guideline of Ministry of Defence to take actions/ implement on various court orders.
  3. Provide if any time limits to implement court directions in Ministry of Defence.
  4. Provide the file No of case initiate by Ministry of Defence as directed by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014 against Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com www.corruptionindrdo

Registration Number      MODEF/R/2014/61834

Drdo

Request to PM for DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

4 Comments
To                                                                                                                         6th October 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India,
Room N0 -152, PMO, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

 

SUBJECT:  DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

Hon’ble Sir,

Hon’ble Madras High Court Judgment dated 24 Sept 2014 in Contempt Petition No.1711 of 2012 inW.P.No.13067 of 2005 and Sub Appln.No.602 of 2012 in which Dr. G Malkondiah, Distinguished Scientist and Chief Controller Research & Development (HR & TM) was one of the respondents. By the order dated 24 Sept 2014, Hon’ble Court pronounced following order:

Para 40 of judgement – Therefore, we propose to impose punishment of sentence of imprisonment onthe respondents 2 and 3 for their wilful disobedience of this Court’s order. In the facts of this case, we feel that merely imposing fine on the second and third respondents would be inadequate and ends of justice would be served, only if they are awarded imprisonment and fine.

Para 41 of judgement – In the result, respondents 2 and 3 are held guilty for civil contemptunder Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- each personally. The Government is directed to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, which lead to insurmountable sufferingsfor the petitioner for more than a decade.

Para 42 of judgement –  The contemnors are directed to surrender for undergoing the punishment of imprisonment within one week from today, failing which the Registry is directed to issue warrant of commitment to prison for undergoing the sentence imposed upon them.

Para 43 of judgement- By this order, the issue has not come to an end and the liability ofthe petitioners/contemnors in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 to comply with the orderdated 30.04.2009, does not abate. Therefore, they are directed to comply with the order forthwith.

  1. Dr. G. Malkondiah has been punished with simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Therefore Dr. G. Malkondiah, CCR&D (HR&TM) has been convicted by Hon’ble Madras High Court for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
  1. Hon’ble Madras High Court stated in their order “A sleeping man can be woken, but not a man who pretends to sleep. Here the Contemnors belong to the latter category and they can never be woken up unless orders in this Contempt Application are passed. Therefore, we hold that the second and thirds respondents have wilfully committed contempt of the order of this Court dated 30.04.2009 in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court”.
  1. Provisions of Rule 10.(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 reproduced here for ready reference:

(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority –

(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;

(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.

  1. Provisions of Rule 10(5)(a) CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 reproduced here for ready reference:

(5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shallcontinue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authoritycompetent to do so.

  1. Therefore, under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) , Dr. G. Malkondiah is now under deemed suspension wef 24.09.2014 and his deemed suspension shall remain continued  until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.
  1. The formal orders of deemed suspension has not been issued till date by the authority competent to do so in MOD and he is continue as CCR&D(HR&TM).
  1. Vide [G.I. , MHA, Letter  No. 39/72/51-Ests., dated the 23rd October 1951] and [G.I. , MHA, O.M. No. 25/70/49-Ests., dated the 26th December, 1949], conviction of Government servants to be promptly communicated to administrative authorities. Whether Dr. G Malkondiah has informed to authority competent so about his conviction or not, is matter of investigation by the competent authority, if not then it will be regarded as suppression of material information and will render him liable to disciplinary action on this ground alone.
  1. Under the provisions of Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the authority competent to do so in case of Dr. G. Malkondiah, should take necessary action as per rules.
  1. Dr. G. Malkondiah challenged the said order dated 24.09.2014 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court vide civil appeal D No. 31977/2014 dated 25 Sept 2014.
  2. The hearing of the civil appeal D No. 31977/2014 along with civil appeal D No. 31978/2014 took place at Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.09.2014 and Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the order dated 24.09.2014 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in contempt petition no. 1711/2012.
  3. Dr. G. Malkondiah knowingly victimizing & mentally torturing the employee of minority community since past ten years by misusing his official position and deliberately disobeying the Court orders. Hon’ble Madras High Court makes comment on his act as “wilful disobedience of Court orders “. This act of Dr. G. Malkondiah is of moral turpitude and should not be ignored by authority competent to do so.
  4. Dr. G. Malkondiah, Distinguished Scientist, took over as Chief Controller R&D (HR) at DRDO HQ on January 01, 2013. As matter of fact Directorate of Personnel (DOP) report to CCR&D (HR) and all legal matters of DRDO be taken care by DOP under CCR&D (HR). Thereby Dr. G. Malkondiah misused his official position to satisfy his ego by contemning the Hon’ble Court order and on the other hand victimizing the man of minority community who was unemployed since the year 2004. Thereby Dr. G. Malkondiah wasted lakhs of rupees from public fund in fighting the cases from Hon’ble Tribunal to Hon’ble Supreme Court since 2004 to 2014.

Therefore, in light of the facts stated above suitable disciplinary action may kindly be initiated by Government against Dr. G. Malkondiah, CCR&D(HR&TM), DRDO and he should be placed under deemed suspension by written order by the competent authority so that  justice and rule of law could be establish in DRDO.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com, website www.corruptionindrdo.comDr.Malakondiah

Annexures:

  1. GOI OM 23 October 1951 under Rule 19 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965
  2. SC order dated 25.09.2014
  3. SC order dated 26.09.2014cca rulesITEM NO.56                              COURT NO.4               SECTION XII

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Civil Appeal Diary No(s).                 31977/2014

     G MALAKONDIAH                                                                Appellant(s)

    VERSUS

      S. JOSEPH RAJ AND ORS                                              

    Respondent(s)

    (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file appeal. And office report)

    WITH C.A. D 31978/2014

    (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report)

    Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

    CORAM :

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT

     

    For Appellant(s)                  Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG

                                        Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.

                                        Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.

                                        Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

      For Respondent(s)                 Mr. V. Balaji,Adv.

                                        Mr. Asai Thambi, Adv.

                                        Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    Permission to file appeal is granted.Perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2012.

    Digitally signed by

    Rajni Mukhi

    Date: 2014.09.29

    12:12:10 IST

    Reason: Petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of the said order.

    Notice be issued on respondents returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

    Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.   He may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder   Affidavit, if any, be filed   within a week thereafter.

    In the meantime, the order dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005 and sub Application No. 602 of 2012 shall remain stayed.

    (Rajni Mukhi)                                    (H.S. Parasher)

    Sr. P.A.                                                       Court Master

Drdo

An old age problem -DRDO has become ageing body with top scientists on extension

7 Comments

For a country that boasts of one of the youngest populations in the world, it is strange that the field that perhaps deals with the most cutting-edge technology is dominated by scientists past their prime. Most top scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) who are tasked with creating future weapons are past the retirement age of 60 and are on service extensions.

Indeed, such is the state of affairs that the head of the research organisation, which encompasses 54 establishments and labs dealing with fields as diverse as ballistic missile defence and insect repellent cream, will get an 18-month contractual tenure from November when he turns 64, the maximum age till which service extensions can be given. This extraordinary contract, beyond the remit of extensions, was specially approved by the previous UPA government more than a year in advance for the present DRDO Chairman Avinash Chander.

Though not new, the old age crisis of the lumbering organisation has worsened as private sector prospects have brightened for young scientists. Internal surveys have found that nearly 87 per cent of the young scientists who join DRDO soon get disenchanted with the archaic, rigid structure of the research body that does not reward extraordinary performance with proportional career growth. Annual intake of new scientists has dropped to just 70, barely enough to replace those who take early retirement, thereby, rapidly increasing DRDO’s age profile.

It is still early to judge the Narendra Modi Government’s policies, but the perception that it is taking a strong stand on the issue has brought cheer to hundreds of young scientists itching to prove their worth in DRDO’s labs across India. A series of events, from the Prime Minister’s remark on promoting young scientists to the cabinet secretariat’s stinging order curbing DRDO’s unilateral age extensions to its scientists, have raised hopes that the problem is finally being addressed.

It’s about time, too. As many as 10 of the 16 top DRDO scientists are on extension. Apart from Chander, nine of the top-graded `Distinguished Scientists should have retired, but most are now on their second extension.

Rules mandate that DRDO scientists must retire at 60. They can, however, be given two two-year extensions under,extraordinary circumstances. Beyond the age of 64, there is no provision for service extension. Yet, the UPA government, in May 2013, approved an Appointments Committee of the Cabinet note to give an 18-month extension to Chander following his “date of retirement of 30.11.2014 on contract basis, with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to before the date of retirement”.

By doing this, the UPA went back on its promise to appoint a younger head to DRDO. (Both V.K. Saraswat and M. Natarajan, who preceded Chander, retired at 64.) The special provision made for Chander has become the subject matter of several complaints, the latest by one of DRDO’s own, younger scientists to the cabinet secretariat in August. “The post-retirement contract is not legal and has been made against the rules. A contractual employee can be taken for an advisory role but not to head an organisation,” Navin Gupta, the Kanpur-based DRDO Scientist ‘C’, said in his complaint.

While a convincing argument can be made that age is no criterion for innovation and that experience and continuity is needed to deal with certain technology areas, most scientists on extension in the DRDO are handling primarily administrative positions- from most director generals at the headquarters to the heads of six of DRDO’s 54 labs and establishments.

The impact of the extensions policy on DRDO’s talent pool is immense: an internal survey found that most of its entry-level scientists are unhappy about their career prospects and some 57 per cent of all scientists leave the organisation prematurely due to lack of professional satisfaction. Since 2008, nearly 500 entry and mid-level scientists have resigned or taken early retirement while intake of new scientists has barely kept pace. At a seminar on August 20, Chander admitted this was a problem that required urgent attention. “DRDO’s annual intake of young scientists has dipped to 70 per year, resulting in a rapidly rising average age which certainly is not a good sign for an innovation-centric organisation,” he said. The average age of DRDO scientists is creeping closer to 40.

When Modi, speaking immediately after Chander at the same function, said that at least five DRDO labs should only employ scientists under 35, it was the first indication that his Government was addressing the problem. Many thought that the PM picked the number, five, randomly, unaware that it had come from the most in-depth review of the DRDO ever done.

The review, conducted by the Rama Rao Committee in 2008, had identified five labs working in critical fields such as solid state physics, metallurgy, cryptology and lasers for ‘empowered‘ status in order to give them the liberty to quickly induct young talent, bypassing the cumbersome selection process.

The voluminous report suggested other far-reaching reforms, but the UPA government never fully implemented it. The new Government has dusted it and top officials are studying its recommendations. These include revamping the human resource structure to enable DRDO to hire talent from outside, including Indians working abroad, for key technologies; identifying a set of ’empowered labs’ that have the freedom to hire and fire scientists; lowering the age of entry of talent; and looking abroad for key innovators. “A balance has to be struck. The optimised path may be being selective in granting extensions for specific research projects and not for administrative roles,” says Air Marshal Ajit Bhavnani (retd), who was a member of the review committee.

As for the old age issue, one of the first things the Modi regime has done, at least, is get the cabinet secretariat to issue a terse circular on September 26, directing DRDO to stop the practice of unilaterally granting age extensions to its scientists without the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, which is headed by the Prime Minister. Sources say extensions have been put on hold and all such future requests would be critically examined. Whether the Government is firm in this resolve will be tested by the upcoming grant of a contract extension to the DRDO chairman.

India Today
India Today
DRDO Chairman Avinash Chander with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
DRDO Chairman Avinash Chander with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

 

Drdo

सेवा विस्तार में पीएम की सहमति जरूरी

1 Comment

सेवानिवृत होने वाले अधिकारियों को बिना अनुमति लिए मनमर्जी से सेवा विस्तार देने पर रोक लगा दी है। पिछले शुक्रवार को जारी आफिस मेमोरेंडम में सेवा विस्तार देने के पहले प्रधानमंत्री की अगुआई वाली नियुक्ति संबंधी मंत्रिमंडलीय समिति (एसीसी) की मुहर लेना अनिवार्य कर दिया है। इसके पहले प्रधानमंत्री अपने मंत्रियों को संप्रग सरकार के मंत्रियों के निजी स्टाफ के रूप में काम कर चुके अधिकारियों को निजी सचिव और ओएसडी रखने पर रोक लगा दी थी।

कार्मिक मंत्रालय के एक वरिष्ठ अधिकारी ने कहा कि सेवानिवृत होने वाले अधिकारियों को बिना एसीसी की अनुमति के सेवा विस्तार देने की परंपरा सी बन गई थी। सेवा विस्तार देने के बाद उसे एसीसी के पास मंजूरी के लिए भेजा जाता था। यही नहीं, कई बार एसीसी के पास अंतिम समय में सेवा विस्तार के लिए फाइल भेजी जाती थी और समय पर कार्रवाई नहीं होने की स्थिति में अस्थायी तौर पर सेवा विस्तार दे दिया जाता था, लेकिन प्रधानमंत्री मोदी ने साफ कर दिया है कि बिना एसीसी से पूर्व मंजूरी लिए किसी भी सेवानिवृत अधिकारी को सेवा विस्तार नहीं दिया जाएगा।

नई व्यवस्था के तहत सभी मंत्रालय और विभागों को सेवा विस्तार की अनुमति की फाइल एसीसी के पास संबंधित अधिकारी के सेवानिवृत होने से दो महीने पहले भेजना होगा। ताकि एसीसी में उस पर विस्तार से विचार किया जा सके।

कार्मिक मंत्रालय के अनुसार यदि मंत्रालय किसी अधिकारी एसीसी की अनुमति मिलने के पहले दिया गया सेवा विस्तार अवैध होगा और संबंधित अधिकारी को सेवानिवृत माना जाएगा। बता दें कि एससीसी में प्रधानमंत्री के अलावा गृह मंत्री राजनाथ सिंह सदस्य हैं। पहले संबंधित मंत्रालय के मंत्रियों को भी एसीसी में शामिल किया गया था, लेकिन मोदी सरकार में एसीसी में उन्हें जगह नहीं मिली है।

Dainik Jagran 3 October 2014
Dainik Jagran 3 October 2014
Drdo

Cabinet nod must for service extension of scientists

2 Comments

TNN | Sep 27, 2014, 05.54AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Centre has made approval of appointments committee of the cabinet (ACC) mandatory for extending the service of scientists employed with the government, beyond their superannuation.

“All the scientific ministries/departments are hereby advised to take timely action for constitution of the departmental peer review committee (DPRC) for considering the cases for extension of service of specialists in medical or scientific fields, beyond the normal date of superannuation and ensure that the proposals seeking approval of the ACC be invariably submitted at least two months in advance of the date of superannuation,” the department of personnel and training said in an order.

The order pointed out cases where scientific ministries and departments have not taken timely action to reconstitute the DPRC, an expert body which meets biennially to consider cases of extension to scientists retiring over the next six months. The recommendations of the DPRC are then sent to the establishment officer for final approval by the ACC.
The note said an officer, in the absence of a specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, should stand retired on the day of his superannuation. “Under no circumstances should the ministry/department concerned extend his services…unilaterally without the approval of ACC,” it said.